“…..This letter of response relates to all four of the Tentative Findings the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, but has specific relevance to the findings for ‘Further processing and manufacture’ and ‘Management, storage and disposal of waste’.

The Board members are community leaders who represent the people and communities of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) lands, Maralinga Tjarutja (MT) lands, and the Yalata lands. The members want to reaffirm to the commission that their communities are strongly opposed to nuclear waste being stored on their lands and would not provide consent for this activity.

As outlined in the Board’s previous submissions, the communities in Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resource Management (AW NRM) region have suffered significant personal, cultural and social harm as a result of nuclear weapons testing. The living memory of this casts a long shadow over any conversation regarding the nuclear fuel cycle.

The Board also wishes to highlight that it is currently illegal to store nuclear waste in South Australia (through the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000), and any attempts to change this legislation without community consultation would erode trust in the entire process.

The Tentative Findings state that community consent would be essential to the successful development of any nuclear fuel cycle activities. This is consistent with Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

`States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent’

If nuclear fuel cycle activities are to be considered in further detail for areas which are in or near the AW NRM region, it will be essential for the Commission to undertake a much deeper and more extensive level of consultation and engagement with the Anangu people and communities.

The AW NRM Board plays an important role in facilitating conversations between communities and government, and is willing to support and advise on any future engagement with Anangu people and communities by the Commission.

SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATOR FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA – Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

“………I would like to point to some research conducted by the Climate Institute that was done in collaboration with Ernst and Young and identifies that there is potential in South Australia to produce enough renewable energy to power 3,000,000 homes, remove pollution equivalent to 450,000 cars, and create close to 5,000 new jobs.

The report suggests that if a renewable energy industry were pursued there could be the creation of 5,178 new jobs including 1,300 permanent ongoing jobs, 2,688 jobs during construction and over 1,189 jobs in manufacturing.

It was very encouraging in December 2015 to see the South Australian Government release the “Low Carbon Investment Plan for South Australia” which looked at a $10 billion investment in low carbon energy – with the hope that by 2025 renewable energy would power 50% of South Australia and 100% by 2050ii . It seems that South Australia is making leaps and bounds, even without this significant investment. It was also encouraging to hear Premier Jay Weatherill’s commitment to renewable energy at the Paris climate summit. Being at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology suits South Australia. I welcome the commitment, enthusiasm and the exciting opportunities this presents to the state……..

While we welcome the preliminary finding that there are no prospects for nuclear power it is disturbing the preliminary findings ignore many serious and ongoing issues with the industry. While the economics are a clear barrier to nuclear power there are a range of safety issues that should be considered as well as suite of safeguards and proliferation considerations that do not appear to have been addressed by the NFCRC……..The world’s only deep geological repository that contains waste is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA. The Onkalo facility in Finland has been in the pipeline since 1983, and the total expected costs for the waste disposal is upward ofAUD $4.4 billion. The Sure facility in France is still under construction but earlier this year there was a collapse in the tunnel killing one worker and injuring and trapping another.

The WIPP facility, designed to contain radioactive waste for 10,000 years had a major radiological incident due to a chemical explosion within the first decade. 21 individuals received low level internal contamination; and there was a measurable leak of waste from the site discharged directly into the environment. The trial facility cost $19 billion to establish and will cost another half a billion to clean up after the 2014 radiation leak. The facility is still closed as the clean-up continues two years later.The preliminary findings of the NFCRC make no mention of the issues at WIPP or other facilities. This lack of consideration of real examples of waste management failures is a clear diversion from the fact based premise of the Royal Commission.Consideration of deep borehole waste storage also relies on optimism rather than evidence. There is no operating or trial deep borehole waste storage globally. There is one proposed trial in the US that will not be using radioactive waste.

The economic scenario put forward by Senator Sean Edwards to take International waste has been heavily criticised. Some of the issues with the Senator Edwards proposal identified by leading Australian economists include:• There is no plan for the management o fthe 56,000 tonnes of waste out of the 60,000 tonnes of waste proposed to be imported.

• There is no plausible case for the suggestion that another country would pay Australia US $lmillion per tonne to dispose of waste

The proposal to convert nuclear waste into fuel for PRISM reactors is not warranted given that PRISM reactors don’t exist, and trials of PRISM reactors have been abandoned due to unacceptable risks

Over the last 30 years Australia has failed to come up with an acceptable solution for managing our own nuclear waste. The proposal to store international radioactive waste relies on Australia doing what other countries have failed to do since the inception of the industrial nuclear industry.

Comments on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings of 15 February 2016 – University of Adelaide ,Consent and the Siting of a Nuclear Waste Storage FacilityBy Mr John Podgorelec*, Dr Alex Wawryk and Dr Peter Burdon†

“……Given many Indigenous communites have already expressed opposition to a storage facility, potential conflict lies ahead. While the finding that free, prior and informed consent must be obtained is welcome, the question remains as to whether this will be followed by the existing, or future, governments. Although intended to guide government, the Tentative Findings arguably provide no strong assurance to communities. For example, they fall well short of making a finding that specific legislation be passed, or the Native Title Act be amended, to provide a right of veto over nuclear activities, including the storage of toxic wastes. ….

In the Commission’s own words, the siting process must be transparent (and by inference fair). Crucial then to the Commission’s final report is to make an unambiguous statement as to where Indigenous communities stand in the event that the only suitable land to site a nuclear waste facility falls within an Indigenous community and consent is withheld. How will the Commission recommend such a deadlock be broken? Is it by mothballing the project until actual consent is granted, or will it recommend the government force the matter to the courts? If it is the latter, then regardless of the government’s best intentions by applying the international standard of FPIC, the Commission’s first sentence in respect of consent should read “community consent must be obtained – unless it is an Indigenous community”….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/University-of-Adelaide.pdf

“……SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL/CULTURAL REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING THE WASTE FACILITY Sec 103-115. Social and community consent The decision not to allow the transport and disposal of high level nuclear waste was embodied in legislation some years ago. SA decided not to grant a social licence for a waste facility. The interim report does not provide compelling findings to change the decision.

Submissions to date provide evidence the community does not wish to change its mind. A number of Indigenous Communities, environment and conservation groups have indicated they do not support a disposal facility for high level waste in SA.

We have no ethical right to ignore or over rule cultural concerns raised by our First Australian’s about development on Native Title Lands. Apart from not wanting high level waste on areas of cultural significance Aboriginal wishes to be fully consulted and listened to on all matters affecting their culture and way of life is paramount……

Economic impacts will extend beyond the tourism, transport, construction and training sectors. There will be impacts across the entire economy. Not all will add to productivity.

The Project will take scarce capital resources away from alternative infra-structure projects and cause a significant re – ordering of State priorities. Our States current image and brand could be tarnished.

Do we want to rely on nuclear waste to reinvigorate our Economy?

After our experience with over reliance on the car and mining sectors we need to think carefully about the potential impact of investing so much in a capital intensive, high risk venture. Do we want to change current investment, employment trends? We are emerging in the Pacific Basin as an 5 international leader in renewables and energy efficiency. Why change the emphasis to become a State reliant on the risky nuclear waste disposal field?

Cash Flow Cash flows are negative for many years. There is no revenue in the first few years only outgoings. The outflow for the first 2 years with accumulated construction costs is estimated to be about $2.4billion. This means the SA public must carry the impact of the outflow for the period. How was this figure calculated? Does it include all the initial costs? How will this be paid for?…..

What is the probability of an accident? Could the financial impact be modelled? Even with a relatively low probability the impact could be substantial in terms of loss of reputation with costly remedial action. We do not want any accidents in the rich marine waters of the Gulf. The Projected Annual Revenue $5.6b puts the project as one of major potential impact for SA not only in terms of gain but also in terms of loss if the project fails, or is shut down in the first 10- 15 years. Does SA want the potential for long term nuclear liability on its books? I expect many tax payers do not……http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Wallis-Smith-Michael.pdf

Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Terrestrial Energy

(Terrestrial Energy is a company marketing the not yet existent Generation IV nuclear reactors, such as , the Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR))

“……There is little in the Tentative Findings to reflect the exciting commercial and manufacturing opportunities available in advanced nuclear technologies. South Australia might be well-positioned to proactively engage with this sector yet it appears to have been overlooked.

Terrestrial Energy strongly disagrees with the statement that innovative, non-lWR designs will not be

66 The decision to have a Nuclear Waste disposal site should be a Commonwealth decision. No State should have the ability to import nuclear waste from other countries. The proposal to import and store Waste nuclear material has impact on the whole nation and they should be consulted.

83 Assisting countries lower their carbon emission by taking their nuclear waste and maintaining security and costs until the “end of time” to get the SA Government a few years of spending money.

89 Controlled and owned by Government forever does not guarantee safety and good management neither does commercial or contracted management.

“….42. Yet there can be no guarantee that accidents will not occur again. While the consequences are severe,…. It seems remarkable to me that, while it is acknowledged that accidents cannot be prevented, there is at the same time a disavowal of the extremity of the consequences of any accident involving this nuclear storage facility. The very nature of the risk, of extreme long term contamination of food and water supplies, and of aquifers, seems oddly denied, which is concerning.

63. The safe management, storage and disposal of Australian and international waste require both social consent for the activity and advanced technical engineering to contain and isolate the waste. Of the two, social consent warrants in planning and development much greater attention than the technical issues. As stated above, this point seemingly downplays the risks inherent in the venture, making the technology sound more persuasive than in reality it can be deemed to be.

77. Engineered barriers are designed to work in combination to greatly delay the exposure of the fuel to groundwater and ensure that if the radionuclides migrate into the natural environment, the level of radioactivity would be below that produced by natural sources. Again and with respect, this is an astonishing assertion. This seems to exaggerate the expertise required to establish the facility to such an extent that even reference to “exposure” does not raise the very obviousissue of risk: ie, what on earth are we doing even considering any possible leakage? Are we really so expert that we can foresee and manage any leakage, with its attendant extreme risk?…..

90. Further, because the society would carry the risks of the activity in the long term, it is entitled to the significant benefits. This does not mean the government would be precluded from sourcing appropriate private sector operational expertise. In my view, the acknowledgement of “carrying risks” is not easily reconciled with the potential extremity of the risk involved. It therefore is highly questionable whether society should carry this risk, since it potentially also affects future generations who may well be burdened by decisions we make in the present.

That private expertise may be sourced too, seemingly ignores the probable (in my opinion) conflicts of interest that will necessarily arise when private profit agendas are pitted against the wider interests of original and subsequent land owners, and the rights of the citizenry.

In conclusion, having read the Tentative Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, I feel obligated to say that the style in which these findings are presented seem to me to seriously down-play, and minimise, the quite significant and potentially catastrophic scenarios the community is being asked to accept.

This defies common sense; the risks and burdens to current and future generations are much more significant than our short-term economic troubles. In regard to the latter, it is unclear how sustainable the economic benefits are, compared with maintenance costs. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Anaf-Gil.pdf

The idea of planning changes to current regulations in advance of public acceptance for any part of the nuclear industry is premature,

Surely parliament must first deliberate and decide whether to accept the nuclear industry, before changes are made to legislative requirements; that would allow the industry to proceed with any new developments….

74

There is no substantiated evidence that ‘Finland or Sweden have successfully developed long term domestic solutions’, neither project has begun.

There is no opportunity to say that their models are proven safe for a ten or even a fifty year period; let alone for the extended time of 250,000 or several hundred thousands of years, that is required…..

Without having to factor in climate change, an article in the Sunday Mail on Feb 21 quoted a Flinders University groundwater scientist, Professor Craig Simmons who has said “we need to think much longer term, 10,000 plus years, which is actually on geological time scales… Sea levels go up,

not one metre but hundreds of metres on these time scales, it’s totally different.”….

146a

With a 20- 30 year period of construction the likelihood of future politicians reversing any decision must not be prevented.

If a better safer option for disposing of nuclear waste was known to exist and to be achievable then it must be allowed to be adopted.

150 If the nuclear waste repository was breached and irradiated vast areas of land and water, all royalties earned by the SA Government would be lost in trying to repair the disaster. Indeed the cost to both the SA and Federal Governments would be inexhaustible……http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Allen-Deidree.pdf

What is also extremely unethical is how the Commission has twisted the words of experts in favour of the dump; an example of this would be its claims, in tentative finding 78, p. 16, that the proposed areas are seismically suitable.

Submission response to ‘Tentative Findings’ – Holly-Kate Whittenbury

“……The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings Report contains many generously overstated ambitions, almost no analysis of the environmental, tourism or agricultural consequences with its focus on narrowly supported economic benefits. The media has claimed that there is ‘scientific consensus’ on supporting a waste facility for South Australia, despite there being many scientific professionals disagreeing with it.

Advocates for the facility have stated that as a state which supposedly ‘benefits’ from uranium mining in its far north, shipping the extracted products out to other countries, that we have a responsibility to deal with the waste created from such products. I disagree; it is questionable whether South Australia actually has benefited from mining as much as we are led to believe, with 83% of all mining profits going to overseas companies according to the Australian Institute’s paper #7, ‘Mining the Truth’ (Richardson, D. Denniss, R. 2011, p. 17).

This is a topic that we recently explored at University during our Environment: A Human Perspective course; it is what is known as ‘Privatizing profits, socializing losses’. Continue reading →

Item 73 The risks associated with storing nuclear waste for many hundreds of thousands of years cannot be adequately assessed, considering the potential changes in geological, political, social, economical, environmental and global issues.

Item 78d How can we predict a mature and stable political, social and economic structure over hundreds of thousands of years? In the last century we had two world wars. We already have economic inequality, some rogue regimes and terrorism impacting around the world. With mass migration of refugees and the effects of climate change having major impacts, initially on third world countries, how can we assume that South Australia will remain isolated from these events?

Item 83b Australia will only have a limited influence on maintaining the security of nuclear materials in its supply chain. Australia cannot guarantee the standards adopted by other countries in other industries, eg, there is considerable concern about food quality regarding pesticides, contamination and radiation from overseas countries. There will be no difference in the nuclear industry with potential disasters possible.

Item 88 How can financial assessments based on operating over about 100 years be relevant when the storage is required over many hundreds of thousands of years?

Item 91 Economic modelling makes lots of assumptions so that you can come up with whatever you want to. As time goes by, predicting economic outcomes over long periods of time becomes more and more erroneous. As an aside, in 1962, a careers adviser suggested that I “stop studying ‘bookkeeping’ because computers were coming in and when you have computers you won’t need accountants.” How wrong can you be!

Item 103 Social and community consent is critical. However, the process needs to be open and transparent and not whitewashed by lobby groups. What the community needs is the truth and not “spin” as is often demonstrated by politicians and “lobbyists”.

Item 119 How can anybody make this statement when operators (and some countries) have a vested interest in minimising any fallout from adverse findings or accidents? You make reference to the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters in Item 123. In relation to Chernobyl, particularly, there have been stories of cover-ups and minimal public release of the full impacts from this disaster. Remember how the “smoking lobby” lied to everyone in relation to the risks associated with cigarette smoking.

Item130 How can anybody make the statement “Those risks are, however, manageable and well-managed” when we have had major disasters? Over the never ending life span of a nuclear waste dump how can we be sure that security risks such as terrorist attacks, weapons proliferation risks or increased tensions/sanctions with neighbouring countries do not eventuate.

Item132 The development of a new port and railway infrastructure adds significantly to the risks. Transporting nuclear waste has inherent risks. These activities are likely to be provided by or leased to the private sector, which will in turn require more risk management by the Government.

Item 150 The Federal and State Government will have to underwrite the risks if the project goes ahead, which will require taxpayer funds. In the event of a disaster the Government (and therefore, the taxpayer) will be required to sort out the mess.

Item 155 Any chance of South Australia being regarded as the “Clean & Green” or the “Carbon Neutral” State will be overshadowed if this proposal goes ahead. Impacts on agriculture, tourism and the renewable energy sectors could be significant, irrespective of whether a major nuclear accident has occurred or not. South Australia could be known as the “Dumb” or the “Dump” State.

Response to Tentative Findings of Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle Submission by Gary Rowbottom,

“…….there is very little information on ILW [Intermediate Level Waste] presented in the Royal Commission Issue Paper (No.4) on the hazard level and required safe containment/storage method or duration required for ILW.

During the tentative fmding delivery by Mr. Kevin Scarce in Port Augusta in February, the day following the release of the tentative fmdings, I asked Mr. Scarce of the SA Government Royal Commission, “how long ILW was dangerous for, and needed to be stored safely for” – he replied “hundreds of years”, but one of his advisors piped up at that point & said, “No, there is no specific figure, it depends on the specific radionuclides involved etc., but is generally in the thousands of years”. The FederalGoverment National Radioactive Waste Management Project information indicates hundreds of thousands of years.

I am very concerned at this disparity of information. I think that whole ILW question needs better thinking and collaboration between the SA Government and Federal Government investigating agencies on this issue, to establish the truth and to then represent this true story to the public…….

I am further a little concerned too that Mr. Scarce, in his delivery of the tentative findings, a mere day after the release of these findings, seemed to be critical of any comments made in opposition to deepening Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, often citing lack of evidence for viewpoints expressed. ……

I would have to say that it seems there is a fair bit of evidence that the commission members themselves are in the majority, clearly quite pro nuclear. I am not happy at the lack of subjectivity that may have brought to the findings, particularly on the waste issue. Whilst Mr. Scarce did say that they did look at the negative sides of all the Issue papers, there is not much evidence of that in the Tentative Findings Report…….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/Rowbottom-Gary.pdf

“……..Language We understand from public hearings and the text of the Tentative Report that the Commission does not like the word ‘dump’ and would prefer the language of ‘waste disposal’. We believe that language is important: it needs to reflect reality, not cloak it in a preferred – or deceptive – ambiguity. The Oxford dictionary defines a dump as ‘a site for depositing rubbish’ and, more specifically ‘A place where particular kind of waste, especially dangerous waste is left: a nuclear waste dump’. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dump…). In this light, in the interests of clarity, we deliberately use the word ‘dump’ in responding to the recommendation that South Australia should build one for high-level nuclear waste.

Risks and Evidence Our central concerns about this proposal fall under two headings:

• safety risks and

• economic risks.

We believe that the evidence provided in support of the Tentative findings is inadequate in relation to the environmental, health and economic risks that the recommendations create for the future of South Australia and its citizens.

Accepting waste that – in the Report’s own words ‘requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years’ (p 16) requires a very high-level of confidence that the risks associated with the location of such waste in our state are very low.

The Tentative Report does not provide a level of evidence that can give confidence about these risks. Unfortunately the nuclear industry and its proponents have a long record of over stating the benefits of the nuclear industry and understating its risks – to the cost of citizens’ in terms of health, community stability, and economic outcomes.

We are asked in the Tentative Report to take these recommendations ‘on faith’ given that the proposed high-level waste dump is not operational anywhere on earth – and, further, that the dump proposed for our state is twenty times larger than that planned (not actual) for Finland.

We are not willing to support this, given the long history of risk, accidents, and economic disasters that have distinguished the nuclear industry internationally.

The case needs to be water tight, if a large nuclear waste dump is to be part of our State’s future. It is far from it, as set out in evidence of the Tentative Report, and in the contestable assumptions that underpin many of its statements.

The Commission states that there ‘is no existing market to ascertain the price a customer may be willing to pay for the permanent disposal of used fuel’ so such estimates are simply conjectures with no genuine basis in reality

we repeat the admonition of Dr David Suzuki in this regard: ‘No government can ensure that any (new) nuclear activities would be undertaken safely. ‘It is impossible.’

Ngoppon Together warns that to attempt to assure any community Aboriginal or non- Aboriginal, that the reverse is true is a deprivation of the human rights of such families and their future generations. It is a severe breaking of trust with our obligations to our own country and environment.

Our members consider that any attempt of a proposal to place this site on Aboriginal lands in SA will be a blatant disregard for the Custodians of their lands already so long disregarded.

These particular Findings of the Royal Commission (including their many subclauses, not included), which note expressly Aboriginal Communities and specifically those communities deeply affected by the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, ring immediate alarm bells for our members.

Our members plead with Commissioner Scarce and the members of the Royal Commission, with Premier Weatherill and all Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly: for the sake of our common humanity abandon all thoughts of this scheme. As fellow South Australians, Australians and as fellow human beings together, the implications and consequences of importing the world’s radioactive waste in its highly toxic form is indeed terrifying; and, it must be said, a totally irresponsible legacy, for our generation to leave to the grandchildren, great grand children and every generation to come in our state of South Australia

Ngoppon Together Inc. (Walking Together Reconciliation Group Murray Bridge SA) RESPONSE to the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION TENTATIVE FINDINGS – due March 18th, 2016

We believe that the Royal Commission has got this wrong and that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive ‘used fuel’ from overseas nuclear reactors (called “high level waste”) which, in the Royal Commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”. (#73)

We ask the South Australian government if they intend to act on this recommendation of the Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings- What Duty of Care to its citizens is being exercised?

Our members view with deep apprehension the sections Social and Community Consent and Law, Heritage and Respecting Rights particularly #110, #111 and #115 with their many subclauses.

We put the following warning to the Commission and consequently to the State Government. No matter how culturally correct are its procedures in dealing with an Aboriginal Community in our state – to succeed in the Commission’s recommendation to establish there, a site for international high-level radioactive waste will be an ultimate betrayal of a Government’s responsibility to their citizens and their future generations. The means fail to justify the end.

‘We don’t want the nuclear waste to be on our lands. Long ago our people didn’t have any rights and went through the bomb. That’s why we haven’t got any Old People today. But these days we have our legal rights. How many people do they want to die like what we seen?’ Mima Smart OAM immediate past Chairperson. Yalata Community Inc. October 2015

According to the wishes of the Commission, Ngoppon Together responds to a number of its TENTATIVE FINDINGS directly and in order. We will deal with the issue that the Royal Commission is recommending to the South Australian Government: INTERNATIONAL USED FUEL (HIGH LEVEL WASTE) AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE

NB Ngoppon Together calls upon the Commission in its final Report due to be released on May 6 to abandon the ‘framing’ of essential concepts into words which downgrade risks and are therefore likely to be more acceptable to the general public.

We cite the words ‘used fuel’ as a primary example of this practice which we warn needs to be named continually and clearly for what it actually is – ‘high level radioactive waste.’

SUBMISSION OF: SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED This submission is specifically focussed on the key issues of brand value, reputation and recognition, with further consideration of the impacts on tourism, regional infrastructure, natural resources, and legacy issues.

SAWIA notes with interest the high level of detail in regard to the technical aspects of the possible involvement of South Australia in the global nuclear fuel cycle as presented in the Tentative Findings. However, it was disappointing to note that, in contrast, “Impacts On Other Sectors” was given relatively little attention and it would be desirable to understand this in more detail to better evaluate the potential risks and benefits. The potential impact on the wine sector is the basis of our submission, for which the Tentative Findings provides insufficient information on which an opinion can be formed.

SAWIA notes that its members have genuine concerns about the potential risks to the reputation of the South Australian wine industry in the event of a nuclear accident occurring on South Australian soil.

FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Nuclear facilities, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps, are now banned in Queensland.

Nuclear facilities banned under the Act include:

·nuclear reactors (whether used to generate electricity or not);

·uranium conversion and enrichment plants;

·nuclear fuel fabrication plants;

·spent fuel processing plants; and

·facilities used to store or dispose of material associated with the nuclear fuel cycle e.g. radioactive waste material.

Exemptions under the legislation include facilities for the storage or disposal of waste material resulting from research or medical purposes, and the operation of a nuclear-powered vessel.

1 FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Australia has long rejected nuclear power, and it is banned in Federal and State laws. The nuclear lobby is out to first repeal those laws, and then to get the Australian government to commit to buying probably large numbers of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) . This could mean first importing plutonium and/or enriched uranium, as some reactor models, (thorium ones) require these to get the fission process started. That would, in effect, mean importing nuclear wastes.

There’s an all-too short period for people to send in Submissions to the 4 Parliamentary Inquiries now in progress.